Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council removed and destroyed his vehicle in error. This is because Mr X can take the matter to court. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his complaints about personal information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• removed and destroyed his vehicle in August 2023 in error;
• failed to process his insurance claim properly; and
• failed to provide him with information he requested about his vehicle.
2. Mr X says this caused him distress and loss of income.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection and processing. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. In August 2023 the Council removed and destroyed Mr X’s car. Mr X wrote to the Council and complained. The Council responded and said it had received a notification the car was abandoned. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s view and submitted a claim against the Council’s insurance.
10. The Council’s insurers accepted liability and offered a payment to Mr X. Mr X disagreed with the amount offered. Mr X requested information from the Council including but not limited to reports about his vehicle, any notification letters sent to Mr X about the destruction of his vehicle, and the certificate of destruction.
11. The Council told Mr X if he wished to pursue the matter further, he could take the issues complained about to court. Mr X said the Council did not send him the information he requested.

Analysis

12. We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X’s primary complaint is that the Council was negligent which resulted in the destruction of his car. This subsequently impacted on his ability to work.
13. Only a court can decide whether the Council is liable to pay damages for any loss or injury. This includes the loss of Mr X’s vehicle and any loss of income. The Council told Mr X if he disagrees with the offer its insurers made, he could take the matter to court. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to do so.
14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to and processed his insurance claim. This is because the underlying issue is a matter for the courts as explained above.
15. Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s response to his request for information is, in essence, a subject access request (SAR).
16. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes failures to comply with SARs.
17. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data handling, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. I consider that to be the case here and Mr X should therefore approach the ICO about his concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to take the main issues to court. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his complaints about access to his personal information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman